[손해배상][집17(2)민,357]
Cases that cannot be seen as falling under the act of the Act on the Management of Administrative Affairs as a principal agent for a loan to the branch of a bank.
The term "Act on the Performance of Administrative Affairs" stipulated in this Article shall be interpreted as "in the course of performing the duties generally deemed to have been related to the original duties of the employee," and therefore, the bank shall not borrow an amount of 270,000 won or less from the individual on a daily basis.
Article 755 of the Civil Act
Yellow Gyeong (Attorney Kim Jong-sik, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)
Han Bank (Attorney Han-young, Counsel for defendant-appellant)
Daegu High Court Decision 68Na229 delivered on April 8, 1969
(1) The part of the original judgment against the defendant is reversed, and that part is remanded to the Daegu High Court.
(2) The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal incurred by the plaintiff's appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
(1) On the grounds of appeal by the Defendant’s legal representative, the lower court acknowledged the following facts. In other words, the lower court recognized that the Nonparty’s act as the principal agent at the Defendant Bank’s (title omitted) branch was the act of lending KRW 270,000,000,000 from the Plaintiff and offered a promissory note with a face value equivalent to the above amount of the Nonparty’s personal name to the Plaintiff using the paper of the said Defendant Bank, thereby deceiving the Plaintiff as if the Nonparty were to use the loan at the Defendant Bank’s (name omitted) branch, and securing it, and thus, the Defendant Bank was liable for the Plaintiff’s damages arising from the Nonparty’s act of deception (name omitted).
However, since an employer's social activity is expanded due to an employee's act, damages incurred to a third party within the scope of the extended social activity should also be borne by the employer. Thus, "management of affairs" under Article 756 of the Civil Act shall be interpreted as "in performing the business's original business or affairs related to the employee's loan to a third party" objectively considering the employee's act against the third party. In this case, the facts acknowledged by the court below are that the non-party who is the owner of the loan of the defendant bank (name omitted)'s loan of the above defendant bank is the loan of the above defendant bank (name omitted)'s loan of the above defendant bank, but the bank's loan of 270,000 won cannot be viewed as a private individual and thus, it cannot be viewed as a loan of the above non-party's monetary loan from the plaintiff to the non-party, and therefore, the non-party's act of lending money cannot be interpreted as an "non-party's act related to the non-party's loan of the above non-party's liabilities."
(2) We examine the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney
The facts acknowledged by the court below in this case are the same as the end of the above (1). Thus, in the Gyeyang Rules pointed out in the theory, "the cancellation of the above deposit in the event of the default of demand or promissory note," and in the theory of the lawsuit, it is clear that the deposit under the promissory note in the name of the defendant is not actually deposited in the defendant bank even if the deposit under the name of the issuance of the above Kim Jong-su, the above Kim Jong-su's individual is not cancelled from the defendant, unless there are other special circumstances, it cannot be said that the court below's decision is erroneous in holding that the defendant bank cannot be deemed to have a deposit obligor under the promissory note with the defendant bank. Thus, there is no reason to argue that there is a deposit claim against the defendant, and in other words, it is unreasonable that the court below recognized the defendant's liability for offsetting the defendant as the defendant's negligence as stated in the above (1). Therefore, it cannot be argued that there is no need to discuss this point.
Therefore, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed without merit. Since the part against the defendant among the original judgment is unfair, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.
Supreme Court Judge Lee Young-subop (Presiding Judge)